Caption for top photo

"Hello Radiolympia. This is direct television from the studios at Alexandra Palace!" *

THESE were the immortal words spoken to camera by Elizabeth Cowell and received at the big Radio show at Olympia, in West London. This was amongst similar test transmissions during August 1936, prior to the beginning of regular broadcasting just a couple of months later, on 2 November 1936.

Alexandra Palace was the birthplace of scheduled public, "high" definition television broadcasting in the UK and arguably, the world.

The American Modern Mechanix magazine of May 1935, described this as, England Will Broadcast First Chain Television Programs, to "Lookers".

BBC Studios A & B are the world's oldest surviving television studios.

YET in 2007, our People’s Palace was to be sold down the river by its very guardians – the Trustee – the London Borough of Haringey. The TV studios were to be destroyed with the connivance of the local council. Here is raw uncensored opinion and information about the scandal of the attempted fire-sale of our Charitable Trust’s asset, for property development. It includes letters sent to local papers, published & unpublished.

AFTER receiving a slap-down from the High Court (2007, October 5), two and a half years went by before the council finally abandoned its 15-year-old policy of "holistic" sale (i.e. lock stock and barrel). Then there was an attempt at partial sale ("up to two-thirds") to a music operator but without governance reform. To tart the place up for a developer, the council blithely sought about a million pounds towards this goal, a further sum of cash to be burnt.

THE local council has proved itself, to everyone's satisfaction, to have been a poor steward and guardian for over 20 years. Now, the master plan (below) developed under the new CEO Duncan Wilson OBE deserves to succeed.

It would be also be a big step forward to have a Trust Board at least partly independent of Haringey Council. 'Outside' experts would be an advantage. They'd likely be more interested, committed, of integrity and offer greater continuity. Bringing independent members onto the board and freeing it from political control would be the best assurance of success, sooner.

2008-02-12

Why all the secrecy about the agreed Lease?

UNLAWFUL secrecy was the main reason why the High Court quashed the first attempt to sell Alexandra Palace. But why was the secrecy about the Lease so great?

The Trustees remain embarrassed at what was revealed in court about what they were prepared to agree to and probably are still prepared to agree to, in the Lease.

The recent letter by the current trust chairman deliberately avoids relevant clauses in the final Lease agreed between the Council and Firoka.

A difference in weight attaches to promises made, on one hand, by a transitory councillor, to the public in a letter to a newspaper and on the other hand, promises made by the London Borough of Haringey to a property developer in a 125-year Lease, plus Master and Project agreements, all legally binding.

The Trust chair is a continuous supporter of the Lease. On 5 October 2007 he sat in court and watched it quashed. Within days he vowed to run it again.

Office Plan: the secret size: The figure for the area for commercial offices has not been denied. In the secret Firoka User Clause (No. 3.11.2.7) it is shown as 2,788 square metres, which sounds less than 30,000 square feet. This change-of-use alone might be worth £18 million pounds to Firoka.

The true size of office development was not even hinted at in the Palm Court Display and the sheer scale was one of the biggest secrets in the Lease. Sketchy outline proposals never showed how the huge swathe of offices might spill into the East wing.

Firoka’s architects’ plans showed – in place of the world’s first television studios – the single word ‘office’. There’s a difference between an office and thirty thousand square feet’s worth.

Surprisingly, the chairman holds up the Palm Court Display as a model of consultation. Yet he sat in court the whole day when it was analyzed for its worth as consultation. The Palm Court effort was found so unsatisfactory that it contributed to the High Court defeat (including costs awarded against the Trustees because of their conduct). However, in deciding on the unlawfulness of the overall Consultation, the biggest factor for the Judge was the secrecy of the Lease.

Unsurprisingly, the Trustees do not speak about this court defeat. Full details online at:

http://tinyurl.com/2yzlzf

CasinoThe council itself may not be keen on the idea of a casino, so why did they nonetheless agree to a casino in the Lease? The Firoka User clause contains:

3.11.2.6use as a small casino (as referred to in section 7(5)(c) of the Gambling Act 2005).

If, in order to licence a new casino, Council had to apply to the Casino Advisory Panel by the end of March 2006, as claimed, why did Haringey agree to provide for a casino in the Lease by the end of that year? If a casino was mere “talk … back in 2005” as claimed, why did the Council agree to the casino clause in the Lease in 2007?

The secret casino clause is in the contract stalled by court action in October, and it would be in force already, but for the quashing secured by Jacob O’Callaghan.

The chairman claims that “a casino is simply not possible”. Firoka must believe a casino is possible, otherwise they would not have thought it worthwhile to insist on the clause. Since the Council has already approved the casino-clause, it will be harder to refuse a casino licence at a later date; Firoka could lever this clause in court.

Casinos may become popular in the next 125 years and a future lessee could say that the Trustees are behaving unreasonably in withholding permission. The casino Lease clause is the fulcrum on which a future Lessee can force the Trustees to approve the casino already in the Lease.

Will the clause still be in the Lease that the Council still wants to run? Is APTL still applying for a permanent track-betting premises licence on behalf of Firoka? The clause and permission reinforce each other.

World’s first TV studios: After the 1980 fire, huge public monies were spent on rebuilding. One of the jobs undertaken was to remove asbestos from the studios. How much money was spent on the first removal work and why was that not completed? If Council-approved work was not done fully, how big a task would it be to finish the job?

Buildings are either contaminated or not, but it is claimed that the studios are contaminated “seriously”. Is this a smokescreen or is the councillor prepared to publish the inspection reports? Publishing these reports would be in the spirit of openness and accountability claimed.

Even if there is some contamination, would that be a good enough reason to demolish the world’s first television studios? Is Firoka aware of the magnitude? Thus far, the issue doesn’t seem to be a problem for Firoka, who would replace the studios with an ‘office’.

Asbestos is a mineral. It is not nuclear waste but asbestos dust is hazardous. If it exists, it is a technical issue and manageable. It is far easier to deal with, than the toxic talk of a trustee seeking to demonize an old building material for political purposes.

Fire-saleIt took an Act of Parliament to permit a term as long as the 125 years of this Lease. If any lease is sufficiently long, in the marketplace it acquires the characteristics of a Freehold. For practical purposes, a ‘lease’ of this length is as bad as a freehold sale.

A long lease is a negotiable asset and can be used as security and borrowed against. The Lease can also be sold on, which could be how Firoka intend to make their killing. An ultra-prime seven-acre building-site with panoramic views over Europe’s biggest city is worth more than £1.5 million.

Much hot air is spoken about plans for Alexandra Palace. What counts is what is in the enforceable, legally-binding Lease. And that is the document about which the chairman says little.

The Walklate Reports (Pdf files)

Haringey's own logo

THE lightning flash logo of the London Borough Council (opposite) is based on the radiating signal of the world's first regular 'high definition' (high for 1930s!) public television broadcast on 2 November 1936. The Studios – on whose first transmission the Council's corporate identity is based – were to be destroyed by a property developer with the complicity of Haringey Council. In an apparent effort to diminish the link, recent versions of the 40-year old logo were distorted – in a way described as a looking like a squashed spider. Please see the archived blog post The pride of Haringey

Subscribe To

Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget

Early TV studio camera in BBC Studio A

TV equipment is largely hidden from Trust Beneficiaries by the local Council. Access to the public is granted rarely, as a favour. Studio B (John Logie Baird's) is derelict due to neglect by the Trustee (Haringey Council). Disgraced ex-chairman Charles Adje worried about "leaks" by his fellow trustees; he worried less about leaks in the roof

Ally Pally: the photo at the top of the page – the current version (Mk III) from about 1990

Mk II version (above), re-built after fire destroyed Mk I, below. Notice the pyramidical water tanks on the four corner towers. The missing television mast, on the front right tower - and for which AP would become famous, was corrected in 1936! The mast - the first in the world - still stands and is used for radio, mobile phone and emergency services backup

Alexandra Palace: Mk II (above) and Mk. I (below)

The first edifice (above) burnt down in 1873, just 16 days after opening. Rebuilt in less than two years, the Mk II version lasted another 95 years. In 1980, the second edifice came into the control of a single, skint Council. Six months later the Palace suffered another serious fire. During the restoration to the current Mk. III version (top), the Council lost control of re-building costs and dumped a huge bill into our Trust's accounts. Can Ally Pally survive Haringey's 12-year old policy of fire-sale?

(okay, its really an engraving of the 1873 fire). More than £1,000,000 was spent on lawyers and PR alone over the botched sale. Firoka is currently suing our charity for £6,200,000. Will there be an out-of court settlement to avoid further embarrassment?

Alexandra Palace in north London, United Kingdom

The world's first television studios lie hidden between the rose window at the southern end of the Great Hall (middle of picture) and the BBC Tower, under the mast. Haringey Council was prepared to see them demolished by a property developer

TV mast under construction in 1935 or 1936

Picture credit: Jim Lewis

Was £100m worth of property to be sold for £1.5m?

ABOUT £100 million of our taxes have gone into AP over the years and - in different hands - that's probably what it's worth. The Council wanted to sell it to Firoka for a rumoured £1.5 million.

THE reason why the sale was bungled, is the same reason why the Palace has enjoyed such chequered fortunes over the last 30 years. Those handling the sale are the same municipal controllers who’ve had stewardship over that time. Haringey Council have let the place run down, as with other important public buildings they control.

THE difference is that Ally Pally ‘the People’s Palace’, is not a municipal building, but the principal asset of a charitable trust whose beneficiaries are you and me. The charitable objects and constitution are a great obstacle to a sale property developers, as the Council and their favoured business partner (Firoka) discovered.

The Discovery of Television – APTS archive

.

EVEN with a ‘successful’ sale – which would have negated the charitable aims – the Trustees would still have been the local council and when (not if) problems arose, the public would still have looked to the Council to sort it out – except the Council would have surrendered all meaningful control. For all practical purposes, the charity would have ceased to exist (which is one of the reasons why the sale was unlawful).

THESaveAllyPally group believes the only long term hope for AP is to transfer control from councillor -Trustees to new, independent Trustees of expertise and long-term interest, integrity and independence.